A Few Observations On The Manticore, After About 50 Hours (and A Few Recent Nice Finds)...

[steveg]

Well, I know I've been somewhat "radio silent" since getting my Manticore.  I simply haven't had enough hours on it, to offer much of any substance.  Even now, 6 months in, I'm still trying to wrap my head around the Manticore, and its audio (in part due to lack of hunting opportunities).  Still, one thing I can say, is that this is one FALSY machine, for sure (I haven't downloaded the update yet, as I want to really learn the machine FIRST, and I only have about 40 to 50 hours on it...nowhere near enough).  But WOW.  Falsy, falsy, which makes the audio VERY busy, and fatiguing to decipher.  And that is with near-factory limits settings...

I am on vacation in PA now, and have gotten some hours on the machine on consecutive days.  I've hunted a couple of sites with a good many square nails.  As always, the deep square nails are my nemesis...as many of them sound "good" from many directions.  I STILL have not learned how to decipher this machine's audio...but at the same time, it's hard to complain as I'm having some success.

Sunday, I dug two deep, old coins -- a very nice 1876 Seated dime, and a 1783 1/2 Reale.  On NEITHER of these targets was I sure I was digging a coin (versus a good-sounding, falsy square nail).  I THOUGHT they both sounded better than a square nail, but I have been fooled many times.  BOTH had quiet iron grunts OVERLAID with high tones; not the solid, louder grunts from a more substantial iron item, but more like the type that you get from soil mineral.  Still, both coins were a mix of high tones and those quiet grunts, overlaid on top of each other.  Both were about 7" to 8" deep; the high tones on the dime were solidly upper 90s (WAY too high), and those on the Reale averaged lower, 70s and 80s. (The dime air tests 79-80, and the Reale 64 to 68).  SO -- on both, I felt that I had to dig, BUT, on neither did I feel confident at all as to what I'd be digging.  I venture to guess that on both targets, the EQX 800 would have hit them solidly, without the iron grunts, and with less up-averaging...and I would have been very confident that I was digging a coin.  I would expect the dime would have ID'd low 30s, and a very soft, clean hit on every sweep.  I do NOT like that the Manticore seems much more "unsure" than the EQX, as to what the target is, when deeper than a few inches, in both Oklahoma and Pennsylvania dirt.  

Meanwhile, on Monday, I managed a 6" to 7" deep 1837 Seated dime.  This one was registering mid 50s ID, pretty much from all angles.  I was NOT expecting silver, but thought maybe Indian Head.  I was SHOCKED when I popped the plug, and the silver coin fell from the bottom of the plug.  I immediately put the pinpointer in the hole, and from the sidewall, pulled about a 1 1/2" long, 1/4" wide rusty blob of iron.  I was surprised that I didn't ever hear a high tone with this target, but instead consistent mid tone.  This was clearly a case where the two targets "averaged together" to report a MUCH lower ID than I'd have expected.  I've never dug a silver coin before that was that far off, in terms of ID.  I wonder if this is something that the MC will do, moreso than the EQX would have?  Based on what I assume to have been the distance between the two targets (both at roughly the same depth), I would have expected to hear at least SOME high tone reports, from some angles, as I circled and swept the target, instead of the fairly consistent, averaged mid 50s ID from pretty much all angles.  

So, overall, I thus far have a love/hate relationship with the Manticore.  It is finding me stuff -- and some GOOD stuff, and yet I do NOT understand the machine's language.  Nearly everything, except shallow coins, have some amount of iron grunting, and pretty severe up-averaging.  Meanwhile, the falses on this machine are overwhelming.  A large number of nails false, and NOT just high-tone falsing.  Some false mid-tone, also.  So, overall, at any given time, I largely have no idea what is under the coil, and thus knowing "what to dig" is very difficult.  And I have yet to dig a deep silver coin, that sounds "clean" and lets me know what I'm digging.  Several years back, I dug an 1888 Seated dime about 30 yards from the 1876, above, and at similar depth -- with my Explorer SE Pro.  I KNEW I had a good target.  With the Equinox, it is pretty easy in many cases to call an 8" deep silver coin.  I do NOT have the sense that the Manticore will give such clean, clear reports on deep silver.  But, again...I'm finding stuff...so it's not like the machine isn't quite capable.  It's just perplexing, and somewhat maddening for me, at this point...

Just my two cents, after my first 50 hours or so.

Steve

[TampaBayBrad]

Doesn't sound like you and Manti are getting along Steve. Sounds like you wished you never broke up with the 800. I respect your opinion, maybe some more time will allow you to figure her out. I'm a beach guy, so I don't see what you dirt guys are seeing on the false front working around a bunch of iron all the time. 

[Dug D]

Hello Steve, you have perfectly documented my exact experience with the MC, prior to update.

I have more than 50 hr in for sure and have now updated, since the update my depth arrows seem to be not even close (like 3 or 4 arrows for a 2 to 3 inch coin) and overall depth seems to be less, but more testing/comparison needs to be done. 

I am glad its not just me with how you described your first 50hr. 

thanks? 

[fishersari]

I got the same problems as you describe when I use AT HC, now in iron patches I use AT LC. The stabilizer didn't help much in iron situations too because I need to stop and sweeps the target multiple times to properly trigger the stabilizer.. 

[Chesroy]

I have not heard one person say that the Manticore is a brilliant machine or have said that they are blown away by it. I have owned one and then sold it as I was not impressed(I dont beach hunt but I do take onboard that the Manticore is great on the beach), I did however intend to buy again if improvements after an update were noteworthy and if a module was made available. 

Today I spoke at length with 2 dealers in the UK regarding customer feedback and their take on the Equinox 900 and Manticore as my desire to buy a new Minelab to replace my 800 and have a new toy to play with still burns within me. 

The 800 is a great machine and it never fails to suprise me with what it uncovers. Anyhow both dealers said that they and their customers  concluded that the 900 basically was a hardware upgrade and was a little better in and around iron and the Manticore was noisey and chatty with posibly a little more depth, however they felt the price tag for the minimal amount of improvement over the 800 was not justified. 

Both dealers basically advised me to save my money as the 800 was still a great machine(I knew that anyhow) and can still hold its own. 

[GB_Amateur]

Nice condition on the 1876, Steve.  The 1837 is considerably lower mintage but the condition wipes that out in terms of value. 

I felt on one early hunt that falsing was worse in All Terrain High Conductors than other AT modes.  (Personally I'd go to General instead of Low Conductors if searching for coins in iron trashy sites.)

The soil mineralization seems to be a big factor in Manticore performance currently.  Still very early for me, too, but I don't notice up-averaging with the Manticore any earlier (depthwise) than with the Eqx 800 in my test garden, contrary to what you just reported.  My ground is moderate (2-3 bars on the F75 and Gold Bug Pro Fisher models).

It seems Minelab still has work to do on the MC for stronger mineralized ground.  I hope they don't settle for "good enough" syndrome....

[Jeff McClendon]

I hate to hear this from you Steve G and from many others.

I have about 30 minutes just playing around with a Manticore so I don't have much of an opinion.

I however do consider the Manticore to be a much more feature rich and slightly more powerful version of the Equinox 900 which I did own for almost 5 months and which I put over 100 hours of careful time on.

As you regulars know, I too found the Equinox 800 to be beyond belief when I first started using one and about 40 hours in I started to make some incredible finds after I got used to its sensitivity and tendency to hit everything (I thought) in the ground.

The 900 at least where I most often detect, took the hitting everything in the high iron mineralization ground around here to a whole different and very unpleasant level both with extreme iron falsing and with multiple beeps and wide ranging target IDs on seemingly easy, mid depth targets that the Equinox 800, Deus 2 and Legend lock onto like they should with no fuss or disagreement. It was like the Equinox 900 was constantly arguing with itself and could never make up its mind which drove me honestly, nuts. It was like the experiences I had with so many single frequency high gain detectors out here that would just go crazy on simple targets.

So, Steve G's post rings very true with what I experienced with the 900.  It looks like Minelab made some fairly extensive software changes and the Nox 700/900 Multi IQ and Manticore Multi IQ+ just don't behave like the Equinox 600/800 Multi IQ which really shocked the excrement out of me. 

Like Steve G, I made some really good finds with the Nox 900 but that was almost by accident since I was so distracted and befuddled by the way it behaved. I enjoyed and appreciated absolutely everything about the Equinox 900 except for the most important part....how it detected.

So it has nothing to do with how much I like or dislike a detector like the Nox 900. The thing just didn't work very well where I detect most often. The tougher the ground conditions and man-made iron conditions, the worse it detected. SAD.

 

 

 

[midalake]

4 hours ago, steveg said:

Sunday, I dug two deep, old coins -- a very nice 1876 Seated dime,

Awesome dime!!! 

[abenson]

What I've found from probably about 100+ hours is AT HC is basically worthless for the type of hunting I do in the moderate to high mineral ground I have. The only place I would use AT HC is in a relatively free from iron field with low minerals. It worked great for me in North Carolina. But around here I have found AT LC to be my go to mode for most of my detecting. AT LC has way less falsing and a more stable ID in sites with lots of iron and on deeper targets in my moderate to high mineralization. I've got a few videos I'll post over the next week or so showing the Manticore in action using AT LC. The M8 coil is also proving to be a real asset to the Manticore in iron and in high mineraliztion. I've toyed with the idea of going back to the 800. But the more I use the Manticore and learn how to set it up correctly for different sites the more I like it and doubt I'll go back to the 800.

[CliveHamy]

Hi Steve, thanks for that. You did not mention what was showing on the 2-D display for the coins. I assume it was just mapping the audio you were hearing? Was everything along the central line, or where some of the high tones and grunts shown off the axis?

Cheers Clive